Nope

At 11/10/09 04:44 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: [it became the best selling game EVER

What? Based on what?
All I know is that for a few months, it passes Magic: The Gathering as the best-selling CCG, not best-selling game.
For a while, it was the best-selling card game, but Magic is back on top and as strong as ever while Pokemon cards are worth next to nothing compared to their original prices.

the individual value of cards has diminished slightly.

I'm pretty sure there was a serious drop in prices. A first edition Charizard was going for 200+ bucks for a while.
Though this concerns me: http://cgi.ebay.ca/Pokemon-booster-pack-
base-charizard_W0QQitemZ110454816015QQcm dZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_2?hash=i tem19b79ebd0f

Wtf? Who's paying 15 bucks for this junk?
My little sister opened dozens of these back in the day haha

But occasionally he lied about what he had or how good a card was and cheated the kids he was trading with.

And that's the first symptoms of someone being a douchebag for the rest of their lives.

but there is nothing to protect you.

That's why you always borrow a Scrye magazine from the store owner :D
LAWL SCRYE.
I wonder if they're still printing that shit. It was so stupid how it listed every rare at 3-5$ because that's what stores sold it for when in fact the real price as per ebay was closer to 25 cents because no one wanted it.
Man I remember when TrollandToad would advertise cards in there for crazy prices because not everyone would use ebay and realize that paying 5 bucks for a shitty rare no one wanted wasn't a great deal.
Now they've adjusted prices to compete with Ebay.

I don't know where I'm going with this but yeah... :D

When a good becomes an addiction the laws of the supposed free market tend to fail because profit doesn't motivate good practices. That's all I'm getting at.

Yeah anarchy is gay.

Today I had an epeefunny...

I was just sitting around feeling depressed. Like... what's the point of my life? Nothing I do matters anymore, no one likes me and my parents just died in a plane crash. No one even looks me in the eye at my job even if I smile while handing them their burgers with FREE extra condiments.

So I was feeling pretty down and that bottle of child strength aspirin was looking pretty tempting...should I just end it all by taking like... half the bottle at once? Maybe mix it with some Nyquil to kill myself extra-strong?

But then I remembered.... I'M AN INTERNET MODERATOR. Every day I log on to several Internets and moderate them. Without me, it would be total chaos. If it weren't for me, you might have your day ruined by pictures of naked playboy models or cracked versions of games you can't afford to buy legally with your allowance.
What if someone calls you a faggot and there's no one there to ban them? The cops sure aren't going to take care of it. Once again the government fails you and it's up to me to render justice.

What if you make a thread about a movie and a more popular user makes one about the same thing hours later? Who's going to protect your intellectual rights? WADE FULP? Ha! Don't make me laugh, he's probably busy trying not to drown in a pool of Benjamins. Without me, you'd just be bullied out of the honor of being the first to make a thread about that new Harry Potter movie.

Without me, who would you PM to ask for your latest post to be deleted? 5 minutes ago, it didn't seem so stupid, but now... it might ruin your reputation if someone read it. What if, in 30 years, you're considered for the highest office in the land and get denied because some sneak found that misspelled post of yours about how "Nickledon" sucked and ruins your political career by exposing it?

I just took al this responsibility in... and remember that I MATTER.

At 11/9/09 10:51 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote: Pedophilia is a mental disorder

Ok someone explain to me why pedophilia is a mental disorder and homosexuality isn't.
Cause reading that wiki, I sure can't figure out how they decided this.

At 11/9/09 09:52 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/9/09 08:58 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

Kids aren't innocent, they're IGNORANT.

They're actually related, if you look at the 7th definition.

Yeah but no one wants to preserve a kid's ignorance and no one wants to remove a kid's innocence. Go figure :D

At 11/9/09 09:29 PM, Elfer wrote:

Richard Dawkins

Well to be fair, he was brought up Christian, probably did read the bible and might know ... some thing about Jesus.

Frankly Ericho, I don't think anyone but Christians/Muslims/Mormons (lololol) give a shit if Jesus existed or not.

I only love to correct people and say that NO his existence is FAR from certain because I was pissed when I found out about that. All my life I had been told, like most people, that yeah Jesus did exist. Everyone figures that the whole "son of God" thing is obviously false, but you'd never suspect the size of the fabrication.

That and the Jews in Egypt part. Everyone KNOWS FOR A FACT that Jews were in Egypt and there was some kind of exodus/ Moses. But that's not even true :O None of it! I was pretty dumbfounded when I found that out.

And watch the reaction of people as you tell them, they'll instantly associate you with some kind of holocaust-denying Nazi.

You'd think people would make a point to NOT react that way unless they actually knew what they were talking about, right?

At 11/9/09 08:58 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

Trying to use rationality to arrive at some sort of logical ethical code that is universally preferable

Well the problem in that is not trying, it's getting people to listen to you.
Some things are less obvious than others, but in this case? Come the fuck on.
If I draw child porn you can arrest me?

Sorry, but fuck no.

I don't even need to explain that one, do I?

There's also the 'innocence' factor

Kids aren't innocent, they're IGNORANT.
Think of every instance you've heard about child innocence and you'll realize that they substitute the word "ignorant" for "innocent".

You might be assuming people hate sexual predators more than cereal killers because they make the news more often.

It's a serial killer haha. As in "kills in series" I.e. multiple people :p
I love how people spell it cereal killer. That's like...the Trix rabbit.

At 11/9/09 07:08 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: You ever think the Critic may just use pedo jokes because they're funny?

They're not really jokes.
But he is slightly mentally retarded so that might be his idea of a joke.

But seriously it's become completely retarded. Just for possession of child porn ( wtf? ) you can get arrested and have your life ruined.

How does that even make sense? I can give you child porn and that will ruin your life if someone finds out. This is insane.

I can write a story where I murder a kid and draw a picture of the kid dismembered in a pool of blood with me pissing on him and that's fine, but if I have a drawing of what looks like a kid getting fucked in the ass, suddenly I should go to jail?

This is downright insanity. Who started this?
Probably more of those conservative retarded helicopter parents who are obsessed with jailing everyone on earth who doesn't live like them.

NUKE THE BIBLE BELT
THERE

So I was watching the Nostalgia Critic today and for like the 24234th time he makes a "joke" about how it's innapropriate for an adult to do anything that could even remotely be considered sexual to/around a kid.

Shit like just touching them, tickling, pushing, looking at them weird. That guy has a severe case of "everyone is a pedophile" and I think this is just the time we live in. Right now, there is nothing worse to be than a pedophile. You can murder your entire family and eat them but as long as you didn't fuck your children before you bleached their skulls to make a candy bowl, you're not THAT bad.

And atheism has been around for millenia and probably predates religion anyway.
As far as we know, animals don't believe in God, so they qualify.

So make that billions of years actually.

At 11/9/09 12:12 PM, Proteas wrote:

All you've got there is conjecture and reasons for doubt, not hard evidence to justify your "he didn't exist" position.

Wow after all this time you STILL cannot recognize an instance of "proving a negative"????
How many times will I have to tell you this?

At 11/9/09 12:22 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: I'll look into it later Pox, but I'm pretty sure there's a Roman record of the execution.

Nope. The Romans don't even mention him as far as we know.

and Jews have made it their business to know some of the truth since we're accused occasionally of killing the man.

They don't mention him either until much much later when he gained popularity as a Christian figure.
The case for Jesus' existence is a classic case of a cascade effect where one guy says it's true and then 15 others say it too all based on the assumption from the first guy.

There's probably no way to ever truly verify it at this point but his existence even as a historical figure it pretty dubious.

At 11/8/09 10:04 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 11/8/09 09:58 PM, poxpower wrote: Jesus most likely never existed and if he did, there is no convincing evidence of it.
I challenge you to find it.

Click.

Enjoy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth _theory
adsadsa

At 11/8/09 10:27 PM, Dawnslayer wrote:

Agreed. There's a general consensus among historians

Well first off, there is no such thing as an "historian" who is just a general knower of all history.
Historians have specialties.

And only a select few ever studied the documentation of Christ.

So when you say "historians" just remember that you're NOT talking about all historians, or even most historians, but the select few who did research into that over the decades.

And what did they produce? A lot of books and not a lot of evidence.

At BEST Jesus might have existed as just some guy who may or may not have said any of the things in the bible.
More likely his existence seems to be a collage of myths, fabrications and retro-fitting.

I'm just so sick of hearing "well at least there was a Jesus". Even if that was true, it could mean ANYTHING.
That still wouldn't allow you to attribute any special quality to him as the sources who wrote about him, the BEST ones don't mention anything he's done, really.

You couldn't say he was a teacher, a leader, a magicians... anything. All you know is his name, which could be the name of any random notable Jesus from that era.

It's almost as stupid as being proud of proving there indeed was a guy named Jim Benson who was born in Alabama between 1950 and 1990.

but I think it would be pretty difficult to start a movement like Christianity if the man behind it were nothing more than urban legend.

Haha why?
Just about everything from the early texts of Judaism is bullshit, didn't stop them. And don't get me started on Norse myths. Yeah there must have been SOME guy named Thor. Like maybe he wasn't a God but like there must have been a really tall dude named Thor who like beat someone up using a hammer...yeah how else could you explain it?
Other than just admitting it's made-up? That never happens in religions!

Jesus most likely never existed and if he did, there is no convincing evidence of it.
I challenge you to find it.

1. Lose weight
2. Stop being a pussy and take your clothes off, you'll get used to it eventually

At 11/7/09 04:28 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

One would think that in such an orderly society as we have now, uniformity and simplicity of the law would be more commonplace.

Yeah there's too many laws.

For one i highly recommend using the word Market Anarchist rather than Anarchists.

hmm nah

Now I'm curious, how exactly does the state ensure the quality of food products? Inspections most likely.

You can sue someone who sold you shit.

It's not important who does the checking, what's important is that you're accountable if your product sucks balls.

That's the main flaw of anarchy. No accountability. Technology might make it possible one of these days though, that's starting to look more and more likely.

Easy. bribe the inspectors or send lobbyists to Washington to rewrite the regulatory laws so they effectively prevent new tomato canning companies from entering the market.

If you're just going to use " you can bribe them" as an out, then nothing works whether under anarchy or a government.

Assuming that society is genuinely interested in the quality of a given product,

They're not, as shown by the number of smokers who still exist today.

and individuals are not inclined to spend their time researching the production methods of products for them self, but they are willing to spend a bit of money to find out SOMEHOW what the quality of a given product is, it only makes sense that private agencies would emerge which would provide consumers with information in regards to the quality of their products.

What difference does it make when there's no laws to regulate what goes on boxes? You can pass 500 products and all I have to do is claim mine is one of them on the box and you'll buy it without knowing.

Eventually all products would have to be filtered through a private company who'd then attain some ridiculous amount of commercial power and become just as easy to corrupt as any government, except you can't vote on how it's run. I'd definitely say a government is the lesser of two evils on this.

So i get the impression you are making a false dichotomy between capitalists and the state.

I can't, for the life of me, figure out how anarchy won't spiral out of control.
All I ever hear from anarchists are two things:

- examples of the government doing something bad
- example of pseudo-anarchist experiments/ systems found in various places around the globe which seem to work ( even though they're based in a non-anarchist system that makes them work )

Kind of like a person saying they just invented a battery-powered solar panel TO RID THE WORLD OF BATTERIES EVIL BATTERIES ARG

At 11/7/09 08:25 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

I don't really see the point in vilifying people who sell a product as ephemeral

Ok well first thing, you have to go on a case-by case basis. A lot of them will make you pay for rituals / potions of some kind of ask offerings / donations for good fortune / karma / forgiveness etc.

Now that is dishonest as they are selling something that does not work as promised. You may feel good after you get it, but that's true of any lie you're fed until you realize you've been had.

I mean, you can call Dennett, Dawkins, and Harris "real scientists"

They are scientists by any definition of a scientist. They have education, do research and publish papers.

It seems to me that all they've done is sell their ideas.

Dawkins was a biologist for like 20+ years before writing any books on atheism. He's written many books on evolution and spent a great deal of time educating the public on scientific matters in which he was an expert.
Sam Harris produced neuroscience research using brain imaging and Dan Dennet.. well go read about it yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Denn ett#Career_in_academia

Then there's people who sell 'ways of life' that avoid religious overtones and stay within secular territory. Tony Robbins, 'Dr.' Phil McGraw, and other "self-help gurus" have made ridiculous fortunes by telling people how they can "live better lives",

Yeah most of them have no support from the skeptic/ scientific community and are regarded as quacks and attacked just as harshly as religious people.

So, are ALL THESE THINGS "scams"?

Most of them.

Is it wrong to profit from an idea if people come to you en-masse to learn about it?

Depends what idea you're talking about.

What about 'ways of life'? If your product is the idea of some manner of living, and the people who buy into it see either detrimental or neutral results instead of beneficial results, is that immediate cause to blame the product itself, or doesn't it matter how the people actually put the product to use?

Well first off, you read the fine print. Then you check if the product works as advertised. If it doesn't, you're entitled to a refund, are you not?

At 11/7/09 09:53 AM, Ericho wrote:

At 11/6/09 03:46 PM, poxpower wrote: Except he probably never existed anyway so who cares.

Uh, yeah, he did exist. If you need any reassurance, Albert Einstein (a scientist in the modern post-Darwinian age) was asked if he believed in Jesus at least as an historical figure to which he replied "Absolutely". That's good enough for me.

Haha what the fuck would Einstein know about Jesus?
And if you believe him on that, then you should also be a deist and quit being Christian ( or whatever you are ) because he sure as shit wasn't part of any religion and wasn't a theist.

At 11/7/09 11:40 AM, Elfer wrote:

They don't necessarily deem the building itself a church,

Dude just read the definition of a church on that website.
By their standards, a broom closet could be a cathedral.

"Elevating atheism to the same status that religion holds now" would be a pretty terrible idea.

Unless they make me the Atheist Pope and they give me my own Pope mobile. Then I think it's a great idea.

At 11/6/09 09:46 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 11/6/09 09:20 PM, poxpower wrote: But at the end of the day, they're all in the same racket.

You do realize that there is such a thing as Church of Atheism, right?

Lol
http://firstchurchofatheism.com/index.ph p/about/faq/

Those clever little boys.
It seems like a pretty obvious ploy to profit from the same benefits religious people are given through a non-religious mean.

Pretty clever. I can't really guess if it's a social commentary or a genuine attempt at making some kind of money.

I'm guessing number 1
http://firstchurchofatheism.com/index.ph p/humor/

It's just another way to show that religion is complete bullshit. They started a church OF ATHEISM and it's as recognized by the law apparently. That's like kicking every other religion in the balls while they're down. Now I'm waiting for the FSM church.

At 11/6/09 06:53 PM, Elfer wrote:

Buddhism is an oddity among world religions in that for the most part, you don't really need to believe in anything.

Doesn't take a long read of the wiki page to know how much mystical bullshit is mixed in with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism.

"Devotion is an important part of the practice of most Buddhists.[92] Devotional practices include bowing, offerings, pilgrimage, chanting. In Pure Land Buddhism, devotion to the Buddha Amitabha is the main practice. In Nichiren Buddhism, devotion to the Lotus Sutra is the main practice."

It's the same story.
Build temples, make statues, become priest, take offerings: profit.

It might be tamer in its teaching but contains just as much bullshit as the others. It's like the unsalted butter of the religious world.

But at the end of the day, they're all in the same racket.

At 11/6/09 08:08 PM, Shikamarana wrote:

Sometimes things just have to get done though. I live with a bunch of people who can't always be on their feet and do things themselves though

If you can't do something yourself, you can ask.
Nothing wrong with that and it's your duty to help out.

But I hate people who just demand endless little favors. When the energy you spend demanding something is equal to or greater than the energy expanded to accomplish that thing, you're a douche.

At 11/6/09 06:49 PM, Lasergates wrote: What do you call someone who cries about insignificant bullshit?

PoxPower.

...but that's... ME!!! :O
:O
:(
:,(
:,(
:,(

At 11/6/09 06:19 PM, ReNaeNae wrote:

How many times do I have to say it?! I'M SORRY!!!

haha what?

At 11/6/09 06:20 PM, AapoJoki wrote: Pox has a girlfriend!

NO COMMENT

At 11/6/09 06:28 PM, Ranchero wrote:

What's wrong with asking someone to turn off the light?

Ok this all depends on many things.
For instance, if the light HAS to be closed, like if you're watching a movie, then it's ok to ask, because it's got to be done anyway.
But that prompts the question: why do you need to ask?

And if the answer is: the light can stay on, you only want it off, then that means you need to get up and do it yourself.

If you do this, you're a douche. Quit it.

- Ask tiny favors you could do yourself ( ex: put down a toilet seat, turn off a light, fetch a remote )

- Do other people favors without them asking and bring it up later when they don't do something for you

- Expect people to do things for you without being asked

- Expect people to want the same things you do and ask that they help you attain it ( ex: you think it's great to have clean windows, so let's clean windows every week! Everyone should help out, right? )

Don't do any of this and save everyone the trouble of hating your dumb ass.

At 11/6/09 10:01 AM, Ericho wrote:

At 11/5/09 01:23 PM, poxpower wrote: Religious is and has always been a business.

If you're going to go by scripture, you would know that Jesus barely made any money at all,

Jesus did what every quack today does for a living: bum money, food, services etc. off people in exchange for promises, good thoughts and magic tricks.

If prostitution is the oldest job, prophet has to be the second oldest. The second Jesus realised he could just quit having a real job and just live off people's good will he probably had a boner.

Except he probably never existed anyway so who cares.

Muhammad and Buddha were already rich before making religions. I doubt it was done for money.

Here's one thing you may not know about rich people: they want more money and power anyway.
As far as Buddha goes, I'm pretty he was fictional too so who cares what his religion says about him? It's not true.

At 11/6/09 01:31 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

But what in fact is the product they're selling?

What AREN'T they selling you mean?
Prayers, indulgences, blessings, rituals, powders, serums, therapies, visionsm books, tapes, memberships, machines etc.

This isn't the same thing because what you're selling here isn't a tangible product

Whatever is it you claim to sell, it's your responsibility as a seller to make sure you can deliver it.

Actually it can. Religion when it's done RIGHT gives people feelings of joy, community, and happiness.

That is NOT what they claim they're giving you. That's what happens to you when you THINK they've given you what they promised.

And again it all depends on what in particular you're talking about but usually even simple counseling or advice will be given under false pretense. The religious person thinks a priest knows dick about a sex life or finances and will trust them because of their religious bonds.

And that's the LEAST mislead you can be.

At 11/6/09 12:02 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

This is where I always fall out with you, and people who make your similar argument with this: Is it lying if you believe you're telling the truth? To me it isn't.

If you're taking money from people, then it's your responsibility to test your product, isn't it?
Is it poisoning people if I sell them expired marmalade? AW BOO HOO I DIDN'T KNOW BECAUSE I WAS SO SURE THAT MY MARMALADE WAS SAFE I DIDN'T RUN ANY TESTS!

Just as the buyer needs to do his homework, the seller has a responsibility to deliver on the goods and the kind of shit religion sells can't be given to any man by any other man.

I'm sorry but that's how it works. Ignorance is not an excuse, especially not in the 21st century.

And frankly things like Scientology and the Church of Latter Day Saints are obvious OBVIOUS scams.

And I'd argue that people like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort are pretty likely exploitative jerkwads because no one can be that retarded.

But to be a TRUE Catholic

I don't think there ever existed one of those.

At 11/5/09 11:07 PM, Proteas wrote:

Oh, so it's legit.

About as legit as lying to people for money can be.

But this is coming from you, so why would I assume for one second you meant a legitimate business venture and not a way to rip people off, as you're whole post implied?

A business doesn't have to be legit.. like the mafia is a business. Crime is a business.
Of you can simply say "they're in the business of" which is to say that "their goal is to".

Religion is a lot of things to a lot of people but at the end of the day it's plain to see that in a lot of places it's amassed incredible fortunes and it's for a reason.

At 11/5/09 10:10 PM, Proteas wrote:

You just did, not even 9 hours ago

I didn't say pyramid scheme, I said business.
Some work alone :D

They work more like a corporation.
They provide a (non)-service and depending on the number of morons who pay for it, they employ more people.

Then they use their wealth to influence governments / fund projects etc.

But there is ONE religion in particular that definitely DOES work pretty much exactly like a pyramid scheme: Scientology.

Atheism is not the cause of any behavior, good or bad.

Neither is religion, it is merely a justification for a set behavior.

One day you'll understand the cause/effect relationships.
One day.

At 11/5/09 07:23 PM, Proteas wrote:

And implying that all religion is a pyramid scheme isn't a ludicrous conspiracy?

No one said that.
Any of that.

Ever.

And it doesn't refute my point. Or address it. Or have anything to do with my post.

Whereas atheism doesn't encourage you to act in a specific way, right?

Atheism is not the cause of any behavior, good or bad.

At 11/5/09 06:37 PM, Proteas wrote:

You're missing the point, though; you don't know if you're being brainwashed by science or not.

Is science lying to me? To think so implies a LUDICROUS conspiracy on a global scale involving everyone from the lowest college student to the highest Nobel winner...

Ultimately, it's not important in most instances to me if science is right or not about just about everything.
What do I care if the universe is 13.7 or 14.2 billion years old?

You can't brainwash someone with something that's completely trivial in their lives. To brainwash implies that you promote a change in behavior that is to your advantage even though it's not the truth.

You can lie to me about something but if I don't give a shit about it, you haven't achieved any brainwashing.

That's why we talk about brainwashing a lot more with religion, because it seeps into every aspect of a person's life. Every day they do something they would otherwise not do because they've been told by someone who doesn't know his dick from his ear that he should do it.

At 11/5/09 01:34 PM, Elfer wrote:

No see, what they're talking about doing is hiring people to pray for sick patients. To be honest, if this goes through, I'd like to start up my own prayer healing business in the states, so I could be paid by insurance companies for having no qualifications and doing nothing.

My praying service would be far superior to yours. We'd do the all-inclusive prayer deal:

Xenu, Jehovah, Satan, Allah, Jesus, Mary, Jupiter, Thor, Baal, Rah, Thot, Anubis, Mercury, Venus, Aphrodite, Zeus, FSM, Chuck Norris, Baast, Shiva, Bargglalage ( I just made him up but you can never be TOO prayed for ).

I think I'll also start selling some indulgences again. Don't want to be stuck in fucking limbo / purgatory, do you?

At 11/5/09 10:36 AM, Ericho wrote:

So, you're saying that religious people are not brainwashed? I certainly don't mistrust authorities nor do I think do other religious people.

I'm saying it's not black and white.
What's being brainwashed, really? It's just believing an authority figure over another, ultimately. The North Koreans are "brainwashed" but it's not their fault.

I guess I'd define brainwashing as MISLEADING someone or as being MISLEAD. But that happens a LOT and we just call that "lies". But at the base of it, brainwashing is just a series of X lies told to a person, intentionally or not.

So the best way to avoid that is to:

- LISTEN TO SCIENTISTS
- DON'T INVEST YOUR LIFE IN THINGS YOU CAN'T PROVE OR DISPROVE
- GIVE UP WHEN THERE'S ENOUGH EVIDENCE AGAINST YOU

Most people would change their minds if engaged in debates, they just don't ever get into any so they stay ignorant and give out the appearance of being brainwashed.

But then there's people like you and shaggy who do you have all the evidence you need to realize you're wrong and yet refuse to snap out of your delusion.

Brainwashed is a pretty appropriate term for that.

Uh, know they're wrong? I think that's a pretty big assumption. Why would so many people do it if they know they're wrong?

Fame, money, power.

Religious is and has always been a business. From its humblest beginnings to the height of the Vatican's power. Shamans / magicians / priests/ prophets/ holy men etc. etc. are all in the business of living off people's credulity. Why work when you can sell someone a magic spell for a week's worth of income? Why start a business when you can scare people into donating vast fortunes to you when you threaten with hellfire or promise them eternal rewards?
Some might innocently be self-deluded but I'm sure a SIZABLE portion of them is full of shit and laughing all the way to the bank while fondling little kid's bums.

At 11/5/09 06:58 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Someone has to believe at some point.

Again it's one thing to assume, it's another to "believe".

The MAIN indicator of someone being brainwashed is their absolute distrust of authorities in whatever subject they claim knowledge in.
That's a dead giveaway of someone who's not just making assumptions but staunchly ignoring opposing views DESPITE HAVING A KNOWLEDGE OF THEM.

It can be very hard to differentiate what's a harmless assumption and what's hardcore brainwashing
but ultimately it comes down to testability and occam's razor type scenarios. Brainwashed people will usually avoid testing their hypothesis or rationalize away any and all results that don't concord with their views or, when testing is harder/ impossible, assume a crazy explanation over a simpler one.

I think, mainly, that to be properly brainwashed you need SOME kind of intelligence otherwise you're just a retard who'll believe anything anyway. How can you brainwash that which has no brain?

And then there's that stage where you have to see if someone is just lying or actually brainwashed. I've seen so many religious debates now and it seems pretty damn obvious that the people on the religious side know they're wrong. They will repeat, shaggy-style, the same arguments over and over and over no matter how many times you prove them to be false ( KENT HOVIND ANYONE? ) and make a CAREER out of debating and writing books.
Their livelihood is clearly too dependent on their belief structure to ever truly assume they're innocently brainwashed.